State blatantly violating SC order in #Aadhaar case #UID

State blatantly violating SC order in #Aadhaar case #UID

Today, a press conference was held to highlight the ongoing blatantviolations of Supreme Court order in the Aadhaar case. Aruna Roy, apetitioner in the case, said that there was no legal basis for theexistence of the UID project. Since September 2013, the Supreme Court haspassed orders five times, directing that Aadhaar is not mandatory foraccessing entitlements, and no one can be denied any service because theyare do not have an aadhaar number; yet people continue to be excluded fromservices on the grounds that they do not have an aadhaar card. Guddu, fromYamuna Khadar, Delhi, speaking at the press conference, spoke of the denialof emergency services in two public hospitals in Delhi when he and hisfriend Mewa Ram needed it because of Mewa Ram's lack of an aadhaar card.

Reetika Khera, economist, said that the stated assumption that the UIDproject will greatly benefit the poor has been repeatedly proven to bewrong. "Rather than being a tool of inclusion, it is fast becoming a toolof exclusion", she said. Further, in a reply to an RTI query it is learntthat only 0.03% of people enrolled had no form of identification before.Those with an ID remain untouched by the project (or the numbers were verysmall). Another stated aim was that the UID would help end corruption inthe Public Distribution System and the National Rural Employment GuaranteeAct. It has been seen in the past few years is that leakages have beenreduced without the use of aadhaar. E.g., in Chhattisgarh, between 2004-5and 2011-12, leakages have come down from 50 to 10 per cent, in Bihar from90% to about 20% in the same period.

"In the ration system in Delhi, the UID project has been used as a tool ofexclusion," said Anjali Bhardwaj of Satark Nagrik Sangathan. Voices fromthe field spoke of how aadhaar has emerged as a barrier to the poor,especially women and children, from accessing their entitlements. Forinstance, Guddu from Yamuna Khadar, Delhi, speaking at the press conferencespoke of the denial of emergency services in two public hospitals in Delhibecause of the lack of an aadhaar card. Ramlalli from Lal Gumbad, Delhihad applied for anew ration card, under national food security act (NFSA). Sheexplained that her children's names were not added to the ration card. Shewas told at the ration office that this was because their Aadhaar cardswere not submitted with the application. Under the NFSA, entitlements havebecome individual, and due to theexclusion of her children, Ramlalli'sfamily now does not receive adequate foodgrain. "The reality is thatAadhaar is not necessary for ending corruption. What we require is greatertransparency and effective systems of grievance redressal," said AnjaliBhardwaj.

Usha Ramanathan, law researcher, explained the latest order of the SupremeCourt dated 11th August which states that the UID number cannot be used atall except for the purpose of the Public Distribution System and in LPG. "So,the CBSE or the UGC or banks or anyone else cannot ask for the number atall. This is because the court recognised that voluntariness was being usedas a means of imposing compulsion to enroll on people," she said. "If theask for the number, they will be in contempt of the orders of the SupremeCourt," she added.

In addition to the problem of exclusion through the UID project and thecontinuing violation of Supreme Court orders, Gopal Krishna of the CitizensForum for Civil Liberties (CFCL) explained that the status of the datacollected through the UID project has been suspect from the very start. Itis being held by companies of dubious provenance, with companies such as L1Identity Solutions, Ernst and Young and Safran Morpho having our datahanded over to them. A contract has been signed between ourgovernment andlarge private companies which says they will hold the collected data for aperiod of seven years. "Everyone knows that if data is stored for evenseven seconds, it can last forever," he said, "this is a breach of trust onthe part of the state to which people have been submitting their data."

Aruna Roy added that by taking this issue lightly we are tacitlysurrendering our economic and social rights.

On the issue of biometrics, Usha Ramanathan explained that the use ofbiometrics in the Indian context is now admittedly experimental. "A UniqueBiometrics Competence Center (UBCC) was announced on the UID website onAugust 13th where it is said that the Indian working population poseschallenges to the use of biometrics, and so the UBCC was being set up to doresearch on biometrics", she said. "This is as a statement as we can expectto hear that biometrics is not only uncertain technology but also untestedtechnology. It seems they only admitted to this weakness because of theSupreme Court's order that they may have to share the information that iswith them with law enforcing agencies. If an outsider to the project wereto see the database, it seems the unreliability of the biometric databasewould get exposed, and this is a preemptive declaration" she added.A reportof the World Bank also stated that the rate of exclusion might be about 40%if identity systems were to be made the basis of access to entitlements;"but the report was soon removed from the World Bank website," she said.Ramanathan highlighted that only one government agency had acted promptlyon the Supreme Court orders – the Election Commission – which released astatement the next day and ensured that there would be no linking of voterID numbers and the UID.

As the matter stands today, the cases challenging the UID project havebeen referredto a Constitution Bench. In the meantime the governmental agencies continue inblatant violation of the court's orders, possibly bolstered by a confidencethat the court has not taken any action in contempt so far. The panelappealed for the swift constitution of a bench to hear the matter and widereportage on the continued problems faced by people due to the project.